With our powers combined, "We" the loyal and (for the most part...satisfied) customers of Canon command you (with a pretty pretty please....and cherry on top) to release your secret weapon - The 14-24 2.8L upon us to smite thee Nikon.

Let it be known, this day of 31st (it just so happens to be my birthday - the "Big" 30) of Augusta, of 2012, that "We" ( I'm really just speaking for myself) will gather groupies to petition everyday, if we must, for you to release it ASAP.

Just trying to have a little fun here...

But seriously, why make us wait? Is it because you haven't quite released the 24-70 II and are afraid this will trump the profits of the 24-70? Some of you may think i'm crazy, but i've really considered purchasing the Nikon 14-24 2.8 (and all of the other verbage (SP) along with an Nikon mount to EF adapter just to use their lens MANUALLY....

From reading some of the other forums, it looks like Canon will be releasing a slew of other lenses before they even touch this one. And before the Die-Hard "Primers" respond, I have tons of primes that I love using, however, it would be nice not having to take a few of them...but rather having this bad girl.

So everyone, don't take this posting too serious, it was meant to lighten the mood.

I would appreciate any insightful commentary.

Have a GREAT Labor-day weekend. I'm photographing at a blues festival...a wedding...and a bunch of other stuff this weekend.

With our powers combined, "We" the loyal and (for the most part...satisfied) customers of Canon command you (with a pretty pretty please....and cherry on top) to release your secret weapon - The 14-24 2.8L upon us to smite thee Nikon.

Let it be known, this day of 31st (it just so happens to be my birthday - the "Big" 30) of Augusta, of 2012, that "We" ( I'm really just speaking for myself) will gather groupies to petition everyday, if we must, for you to release it ASAP.

Ha ha ha good one ... you can count on my vote for supporting your candidate (EF 14-24 f/2.8 L representing the Canon Party as the Prime Minister of Canon Zoom Lens Kingdom).By the way ... HAPPY BIRTHDAY ... may you have many more with all your good dreams come true, especially the 14-24 f/2.8 L lens.

Actually, very few who have tried a 14-24 are really that thrilled. It is notorious for flare.Sure, in the studio with controlled lighting, its very good, but, in the real world with a sun and reflections off cars, roofs, buildings, Flare Flare Flare, it seems to just grab it out of nowhere.

Logged

YellowJersey

Actually, very few who have tried a 14-24 are really that thrilled. It is notorious for flare.Sure, in the studio with controlled lighting, its very good, but, in the real world with a sun and reflections off cars, roofs, buildings, Flare Flare Flare, it seems to just grab it out of nowhere

Canon should have a look on how many photographers holding canon full frame cameras with a nikon 14-24 sticked into it.

however i'd love to see a 12-24 like sigmas, only sharper!

i'd die for this, i'd kill for this, i'd go streight to hell for this

To me this seems like the better route, Nikon's focus on making their sharpest zooms all f2.8 limates there market IMHO as it makes them expensive and bulky.

To me a 12-24mm or 14-24mm lens seems like its going to get the majority of its use from landscape/architecture photographers who will not really miss the larger appature. 16-35mm seems a much better range for an f/2.8 zoom to me offering both a wide and a relatively normal view for people photography, indeed Nikon had to bring back the 17-35mm for that reason I'd guess.

A Canon 14-24mm f/4 zoom would likely be alot cheaper and smaller than the Nikon and offer them a similar advanatge to the 70-200mm f/4's if you ask me.

Canon should have a look on how many photographers holding canon full frame cameras with a nikon 14-24 sticked into it.

however i'd love to see a 12-24 like sigmas, only sharper!

i'd die for this, i'd kill for this, i'd go streight to hell for this

Uhmmm... I can do this. Tho there's no reason I'd want to bother when I have a D800 to put it on instead.Just got my 14-24mm Nikon a couple days ago. The manual 20mm 2.8 prime is so small compared to it! I thot about just getting the 14mm Samyang but the Nikon has a lot less distortion in the central area, and it's only 5x as much $. It makes me giggle when I can see my toes in the viewfinder.

I have an F<>EOS adapter but I'd want a different one that allows me to control the aperture lever on these G-series Nikon lenses. but... so much easier to just twist it onto a nikon body.

To me this seems like the better route, Nikon's focus on making their sharpest zooms all f2.8 limates there market IMHO as it makes them expensive and bulky.

To me a 12-24mm or 14-24mm lens seems like its going to get the majority of its use from landscape/architecture photographers who will not really miss the larger appature. 16-35mm seems a much better range for an f/2.8 zoom to me offering both a wide and a relatively normal view for people photography, indeed Nikon had to bring back the 17-35mm for that reason I'd guess.

A Canon 14-24mm f/4 zoom would likely be alot cheaper and smaller than the Nikon and offer them a similar advanatge to the 70-200mm f/4's if you ask me.

I kinda wish Nikon would've made this lens an f/4, sure might've been a lot smaller and lighter, and a bit cheaper.

But, since this thing will hold its value like a Canon L, I figured I'd buy a new one, use if for a while and see how it compares to my wide primes. If I choose to sell it, I won't lose very much.One thing that already strikes me so far... 14mm doesn't seem all that much wider than 20mm. I could live without it. But, since I have it I'll try justify it by hopefully throwing some big scenes in front of it this fall.

If only I could get that nifty TS-E24mm f/3.5 II and it's 17mm cousin to fit an F-mount...

I'd be in for a 12-24 f2.8. about years down the road as a poster in an earlier thread guessed. But as an amateur I cannot justify its price tag, I guess. So the 16-35 2.8 plus the ND 10 filter seems quite the better move then. Or a 17-40 as I mostly do nightsky and Landscape from a tripod.

I find that hard to believe ... at the local Photographic Society we have several Nikon 14-24 users and all of them have nothing but praise for it ... but I will speak to them during this weekend about flare.

Actually, very few who have tried a 14-24 are really that thrilled. It is notorious for flare.Sure, in the studio with controlled lighting, its very good, but, in the real world with a sun and reflections off cars, roofs, buildings, Flare Flare Flare, it seems to just grab it out of nowhere.

I find it hard to believe you know what you are talking about.I among many, is using the Nikon 14-24 2.8 og my Canon FF bodies 5D2/5D3/1DX with an adapter.And even if the lens becomes completely manual, and even cumbersome to operate, I still prefere it.

No lens is perfect, neither the Nikon 14-24 2.8, but even if it is a little prone to flares yes, it is still the overall best ultra wide angle lens on the market. Optically the Samyang 14/Rokinon 14 is slightly sharper in the corners, but it suffers from severe vignetting and moustache distortion in the center. I have them both.

The Nikon 14-24 on the Canon is my preferred choice in 90% of my usage scenarios, and I will continue to use it until Canon releases something equally good.

PS! The Nikon 14-24 should not be compared directly to eg. the Canon 16-35, since they are two completely different designs. The Nikon 14-24 is havy, big and bulky compared to the Canon 16-35, but still it is in another class optically. The Nikon 16-35 is comparable optically to the Canon 16-35. But I would love to have a Canon 14-24 2.8 which performs optically comparable to the Nikkor, even if it becomes LARGE and HEAVY !!

Actually, very few who have tried a 14-24 are really that thrilled. It is notorious for flare.Sure, in the studio with controlled lighting, its very good, but, in the real world with a sun and reflections off cars, roofs, buildings, Flare Flare Flare, it seems to just grab it out of nowhere.

I find it hard to believe you know what you are talking about.I among many, is using the Nikon 14-24 2.8 og my Canon FF bodies 5D2/5D3/1DX with an adapter.And even if the lens becomes completely manual, and even cumbersome to operate, I still prefere it.

No lens is perfect, neither the Nikon 14-24 2.8, but even if it is a little prone to flares yes, it is still the overall best ultra wide angle lens on the market. Optically the Samyang 14/Rokinon 14 is slightly sharper in the corners, but it suffers from severe vignetting and moustache distortion in the center. I have them both.

The Nikon 14-24 on the Canon is my preferred choice in 90% of my usage scenarios, and I will continue to use it until Canon releases something equally good.

PS! The Nikon 14-24 should not be compared directly to eg. the Canon 16-35, since they are two completely different designs. The Nikon 14-24 is havy, big and bulky compared to the Canon 16-35, but still it is in another class optically. The Nikon 16-35 is comparable optically to the Canon 16-35. But I would love to have a Canon 14-24 2.8 which performs optically comparable to the Nikkor, even if it becomes LARGE and HEAVY !!

I really appreciate everyone's imput into this thread. The situation with the 14-24 is very similar to the 5DMK II Vs. 5D MKIII. For example, I purchased my 5d MKII last September...and I literally waited until the last moment in hopes that the 5dmk III was going to be released soon.

But unfortunately, like most instances, you use what's available and make sure you do the darn best job you can with it.

So, it may be another year until this lens is going to be released, so...I'll just make do with the 16-35, which is still a great lens.

So...using a nikon lens on a canon body...I think I would really enjoy it. I have several Canon FD lenses that I use (with a converter, no doubt) with my EOS systems...and they surprisingly do a magnificent job. Actually, my favorite is my 70-210 barrel zoom (keep in mind...all manual focus - using AV)

Let's be realistic, I would never take one of these setups to a paying shoot, for fun maybe...but the offshoot chance of not capturing what i'm being paid to shoot...UGH...

The real reason for the thread - is because I'm not terribly thrilled with the 17-40 or 16-35. Canon can do so much better, be we have to hold their feet to the fire. Ex. 70-200 2.8L II .....I don't care who you are or what you shoot on...hands down, this is the best ( and I mean THE BEST) 70-200 lens out there in this focal range. And if you think otherwise, then guess what...you're on your own - Sorry.

Anyways, everyone have a great labor day weekend. I'm going to start getting ready for a wedding i'm photographing today.